A program that provides subsidized phone service to low-income individuals has nearly doubled in size in Ohio in the past year -- now covering more than a million people. At the same time, federal officials say they're reining in waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that reforms have saved $43 million since January and are expected to save $200 million by year's end. In Ohio, savings are expected to be $2.9 million a year.
The savings were realized in part because the government gave out fewer cellphones to ineligible people and took steps to avoid issuing duplicate phones.
But the size of the program in the state -- and profits to the increasing number of cellphone companies involved -- has exploded in recent months, according to a Dayton Daily News analysis of program data.
The program in Ohio cost $26.9 million in the first quarter of 2012, the most recent data available, versus $15.6 million in the same timeframe in 2011. Compared to the first quarter of 2011, the number of people in the program nearly doubled to more than a million.
Growth could cost everyone who owns a phone. The program is funded through the "Universal Service Fund" charge on phone bills -- usually a dollar or two per bill -- and the amount of the fee is determined by the cost of this and other programs.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
This is about a $2B/yr program where a huge number of the subsidized phones are going to people ineligible and some of the eligible phone users are selling their phones via street gangs (or Craig's list).
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/30/2012 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Barbara ||
09/30/2012 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
At the same time, federal officials say they're reining in waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
The mere existence of this program is 'waste, fraud & abuse', in my book. But then again, I'm not trying to bribe low income residents of Oiho to get re-elected.
The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.
Some defense companies--including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and EADS North America--have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to give advance warning to workers deemed reasonably likely to lose their jobs. Companies appeared undeterred by a July 30 guidance from the Labor Department, which said issuing such notices would be inappropriate, due to the possibility that sequestration may be averted. The Labor Department also said companies do not have enough information about how the cuts might be implemented to determine which workers or specific programs could be affected should Congress fail to reach a compromise to reduce the deficit, triggering $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half from defense, half non-defense. For 2013, that would amount to $109 billion in spending cuts.
So the Office of Management and Budget went a step further in guidance issued late Friday afternoon. If an agency terminates or modifies a contract, and the contractor must close a plant or lay off workers en masse, the company could treat employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability, attorneys' fees and other litigation costs as allowable costs to be covered by the contracting agency--so long as the contractor has followed a course of action consistent with the Labor Department's guidance. The legal fees would be covered regardless of the outcome of the litigation, according to the OMB guidance issued by Daniel Werfel, controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, and Joseph Jordan, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.
Does anyone actually believe this promise does not come with an expiration date measured in minutes?
"This guidance does not alter existing rights, responsibilities, obligations, or limitations under individual contract provisions or the governing cost principles set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other applicable law," said the guidance addressed to the chief financial officers and senior procurement executives of departments and agencies. "Thus, agencies may treat as allowable other costs potentially associated with sequestration, including WARN Act-related costs arising under circumstances not specified in this guidance, based on the usual cost principles of allocability, allowability, and reasonableness as set forth in the FAR."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well layoffs have been going on now for some time.
The horse has gotten out of the barn. Claw back?. Anything is possible with this administration.
#2
"Layoff Notices"! The firms are required by law to issue notices telling employees that, barring any changes, they will probably be cut. Kinda not helpful for Teh Won right before they vote. His regime is trying to circumvent the law AGAIN
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2012 7:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
btw - he doesn't give a shit if they are laid off, as long as he gets reelected
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2012 7:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Some defense companies...have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act...Companies appeared undeterred by a July 30 guidance from the Labor Department, which said issuing such notices would be inappropriate... Office of Management and Budget went a step further in guidance... the company could treat employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability, attorneys' fees and other litigation costs as allowable costs to be covered by the contracting agency--so long as the contractor has followed Labor Department's guidance. The legal fees would be covered regardless of the outcome of the litigation...
Aside from the suits-and-ties, the Friday afternoon news releases, and no visible corpses, how is this different from the promise to compensate a dead jihadi's* family?
*Substitute 'mafia soldier' or 'gang member' if the first imagery is too provocative.
#8
so the jobs will be cut - but the people won't be told ahead of time. all so the election will be a "pretty event". otherwise all these notices would have been mailed out before the Nov voting date.
#9
The people who are at risk know it, formal notification or not. After all, plans will have had to have been made and shared for how to handle the shut down, whether temporary or permanent. All the non-mailing avoids is a document for the journalists to publicize. But keep an eye out for articles on the subject in local newspapers and television stations as the date approaches, because they will be there, even if the national media ignore as hard as they can.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A program that provides subsidized phone service to low-income individuals has nearly doubled in size in Ohio in the past year -- now covering more than a million people. At the same time, federal officials say they're reining in waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.
